The Voluntary Siting Process, a Case Study in New Jersey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and its 1985 Amendments has not provided new disposal capacity within the United States; however, sufficient disposal capacity currently exists to handle today's disposal needs. Politics, opposition groups, and public mistrust in government have combined to limit the possibilities for establishing new disposal facilities. In 2000, New Jersey (NJ and Connecticut (CT), as members of the Northeast Compact for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, admitted South Carolina (SC) to their compact, renaming it as the "Atlantic Compact." The advantage to SC is that they are able to prevent disposal of waste from outside the Compact. The advantage to NJ and CT is that they are guaranteed waste disposal for approximately the next 50 years, or until all currently operating nuclear power plants in the states are decommissioned. This paper details the process, much of it not following the scientific method, to try to site a low-level waste facility in NJ. With the formation of the NJ Siting Board in 1987, an effort was made to locate a site using deterministic criteria; however, in 1992, the Board shifted to a voluntary process. In 1998, the Board made the determination that there was adequate capacity for waste disposal and ended active siting. In 2000, the opportunity to form the Atlantic Compact ended siting through an out-of-state solution. While it is not clear that the voluntary process would have ultimately worked in NJ, it has worked in Canada and the process may be one of the few mechanisms for the siting of any type of hazardous material disposal facility. Also, other states still have to decide what they will do after 2008 when Barnwell is no longer open to them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".